Andreyev Ross, Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee. (2025)

Affirmed. See Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678, 697 (Fla. 2013) (“The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's determination will not be disturbed on appellate review absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” (citation omitted)); § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2019) (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”) (emphasis added); see also Monestime v. State, 41 So. 3d 1110, 1112-13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (concluding that photos of an AR15 rifle, along with “cocaine and money” were necessary to allow the jury to understand context of the charged offenses, noting: “To prove its case, the State is entitled to present evidence which paints an accurate picture of the events surrounding the crimes charged.” (quoting Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966, 970 (Fla. 1994))); Dorsett v. State, 944 So. 2d 1207, 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding evidence explaining why detective focused his surveillance on defendant was relevant and necessary to establish the reliability of the detective's identification of the defendant and the absence of mistake); Vail v. State, 890 So. 2d 373, 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (concluding no abuse of discretion was shown in trial court permitting testimony regarding a gun found in the van, along with contraband at issue, because it was inextricably intertwined with the investigation and arrest); Irving v. State, 627 So. 2d 92, 94-95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (concluding it was not an abuse of discretion to admit, as relevant to establishing the context of the charged offense, a gun found with the defendant at the time of arrest, even though it was not the gun used in the offense).

PER CURIAM.